hotShot

South has a hand with only 5 looser, and his partner has shown 4 card fit for both suits and made a game try. So south knows of 2 9-card fits with partner, and the only problems are the potential 2 ♥looser. So I would make a 4♦ cuebid over 3♠ and wait for partner to cuebid ♥. After that simple RKCB will do the rest.

That is because they are only for one week. They can come back after that and redo it and redo it and redo it. There should be a graded scale... One week for offenses one through like three or four, then two weeks, then three weeks, etc. for repeated ban's. Of course that might be a nightmare to program and track. Thinking of all the other things BBO keeps track on, this would be simple, i bet the ban's are already in a database, adding a ban counter would be simple.

Could not agree more. :) North could have shown a 4card♥ using dbl over 1♠. Since 2♣ seems to be a simple rise and is is setting the suit. So 4♥ is a splinter, promising a better ♣ fit and some extra controls that make the hand better than a usual maximum simple raise.

Bidding a 3+ card minor is natural and not alertable. The suggested method to bid 2m and raise to game later could be taken as "delayed game rise" which is a slam invitation around here. So your options are: 4♠ (You will be expected a little weaker.) 2NT (Lying about the 4th ♠ 2m (Don't blame partner, if his slam try fails.) 2♥ Lying about the 5th♥ Partner has no right to complain no matter which of these you chose. Because each of these bids is a lie.

Just to mention it, opps had exactly 7HCP (♥AJ and ♣Q) at trick 1 and they still have 7HCP after trick 10. If we give all that to RHO, LHO never had a point.

If I didn't miss something ♥AJT9 and ♣QT are left. RHO had 1♦ and we saw 1♥, 4♣ and 4♠ LHO had 4♦ and we saw 1♥, 2♣ and 3 ♠ Somehow I think RHO has ♥AJ9 while LHO has ♥T and ♣QT, meaning that initially opps held: LHO 3244 RHO 4414 So I'll try the Jack.

I don't think it is clear who is at fault and if even a fault happened. Obviously north is opening light and he showed a 5(332) minimum hand. But his distribution is 6232. An extra trump and 2 doubletons is some distributional extra power and his side values are worth 2 sure tricks. On a good day I'll bid 4♠ with this. South has 12 HCP 4324 distribution, ♦Q probably wasted. Not much ruffing on both sides and a partner who opens light, I guess I would have passed too. Both player have maximum for their bids and the hands fit nicely, but still game depends on a finesse. It might not pay off to be in games that close.

Without knowing more about the partnership I will be very careful assigning blame. Among most of the players I know, 3♣ is asking for a stopper/half stopper in ♣ trying to reach 3NT. It does not promise ♦ fit. Additionally north 2♦ bid could show 4+ cards and a minimum hand, so that south not having opening strength cannot have a GF. Having said that, I think that both player misdescribed their hands. South 3♣ seems like a desperate try to get somewhere. Maybe he has support for one of north suits, maybe his ♠ are long enough to play them without support or to use them as source of tricks in 3NT, if partner can stop ♣. All this creates the impression that the ♠ suit is strong. North has only 5 looser, his hand is much stronger than he showed with his bidding. He never told his partner that his ♦ are a 5 card suit. Maybe 3♦ instead of 2♦ would have cleared the case. Passing 3♣X should show a hand pattern like 3541 or 2542, at least he should bid 3♦ to show 1552 or 2551 distribution. I think the worst bid is 3♣, followed closely by: pass over 3♣X, 3♦ and 2♦. But most of the blame goes to north, although 3♣ is the worst bid, it is a desperate cry for help, promising some useful hand. North's pass over 3♣X is misdescribing his hand both in strength and shape. So I blame 80% north, 20% south.

We seem to have 9+ cards in ♦, which means that opps may have 9+♠'s. I think opps will compete up to 3♠. Partner has 3-♠ than and his/our ♦ are probably worth nothing playing ♠. So I like to put more pressure on west bidding 4♦, but with my std partner this would be RKCB in ♦ so I would have to settle with 3♦.

Thank you! That was fast :rolleyes:! They seem to work with penalties only.

From: http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys//OGlossary/GlossO.html Does anyone here have access to the CoC of this event, or can remember then?

We have a great fit in a major so there is no need to talk about my diamonds. But we need to know about wasted values in the black suits. If partner has to much of them this could even endanger 4♥. So telling about my shortage in ♠ is the first step to game,slam or grand.

If you adapt the laws for online bridge, you will find that several laws are obsolete, because: -bids out of turn -insufficient bids -leads out of turn -revokes won't happen, because the software does not allow them. The alerting procedure is more like using screens, and private chat can avoid a lot of UI situations. But you also have problems that you usually don't have in f2f bridge. I can't remember a club evenings where a player left in the middle of a tourney. Online directing is mostly about subbing player. It is quite easy to determine the slow players in f2f bridge and as TD i can put some pressure on them. I can go to their table, i can issue warnings, I can order to skip a board awarding A- to the responsible side and I can assign penalties if necessary. If I go the a table online, the player won't even notice (Fred, could you give TD's a button to send an official "The TD is looking at you!" message), the software is not helping much to issue warnings and it's not possible to assign penalties. As TD you have no way to find out, who is responsible for the slow performance of a table. In f2f bridge you plan with 8 min/board including shuffling and writing down results. Perhaps you give a extra minute for moving to the next table. Online these extra duties are performed by the software, so 8 min/board is much time. If you organize an unclocked event, the end of the tourney depends on the slowest playing pair, and there are always pairs that take 10-12 minutes per board, while the majority is using 6 minutes/board. So if you create a tourney with 8 boards to play most players are ready within an hour and some will still be playing after 2 hours. No wonder player and TD's prefer clocked events, they can plan the time consumption much better this way. But for this kind of event we need new laws to define what to do with unfinished boards. It would be perfect if the software would try to finish unfinished boards, if at least the bidding was finished and the first card played.

3NT should have stopper in all side suits including ♥ and 3♣ could mean 6-8 ♣ tricks. So the best we might get is down 1. On the our side I think that 4♥ should not be more than down 2, considering my holding and that partners 3♥ should be constructive or better. So i try 4♥, because i think that 3NT is more likely to make than to go down, and we are closer to making 4M than to bring down 3NT.

Do you think 1) that 2♠ promises stopper in ♠ or 2) do you expect 2♠ to be 2- cards in spade, fit in clubs and strength. If it is not 1) than any north bidding 3NT without stopping spades is ... let's say courageous. North should have stopper in ♠, one for the lead and one for each time he needs to exit in another suit. Partner had a risk free dbl on 2♠, and he could have dbled 3NT, but he did not do it. I would think that this means that opps indeed have ♠ stopper. The auction may not be a stopper ask for spades by agreement, but in fact north should have thought about ♠ stopper. He should have something in ♥ as well, but many north would bid 3NT without ♥ stopper, because there is hope that south shortage in ♠ and strength in HCP includes ♥ stopper.

If your partner plays some SAYC style, he has 4♦ and 6♣. 1246 seems a possible distribution. I partner would be strong enough to reverse he would have started with ♣. So I would expect 12-15 HCP.

I disagree. There is no law that says that. Since we agree that the problem is not in the laws, it is obvious that the solution cannot be found in the laws either. LAWS 82 orders the TD to perform "RECTIFICATION OF ERRORS OF PROCEDURE". The way BBO handles the round end could be seen as an "error of procedure", so the TD has the duty to rectify this error and he has the right to adjust boards. I my 2nd post to this thread I stated how the software should have handled the problem, but until Fred and Uday decide to adapt the software (and I see a lot of good reasons, why they should leave it as it is) each TD has do deal with this problem and find a solution for it. Law 80 (E/F) allows the sponsoring organisation (BBO/ the host in BBO) to establish "Special Conditions" and "Supplementary Regulations". It is obviously a special condition to organize a timed event, and the way how to handle the unfinished boards could be defined by "Supplementary Regulations". Unfinished boards are causing chances to cheat and produce a massive injustice to pairs that are a non offending side. In fact if internet connections or a busy TDs are causing a delay, there are only non offending sides involved. The condition LAW 80 puts on the SO is that their regulations should not conflict (to much) with these laws. Now assigning an artificial score is as illegal as an adjusted score, since the only legal way would be to finish the boards play. Assigning an artificial score is additionally damaging the non offending side. I tried to point out that in other cases when part of a board is played, assigning an artificial score is not allowed. I also tried to point out, that there are laws that allow a score adjustment is similar cases. So my conclusion is that adjusting the score is not conflicting with these laws, as method to handle timed events.

Once beginner started bidding, they want to do it. So I use minibridge for the first lessons, so they have some hands on experience. Often they discover basic techniques like finesse by themselves. 1. lesson How to play minibridge followed by hands on experience 2. lesson Basic card play (handling suits, impass, expass, ruffing finesse,..) and play minibridge 3. lesson defense (leads, simple signals) and play minibridge 4. lesson count (usually they have found out by than, that counting is a great help in play and defence) and play minibridge The following lessons depends on the speed they improve declarer play and basic defense. The time to start talking about the bidding is when they start to complain that the minibridge contract is not good enough, because they want the game bonus. Once they started bidding, they usually don't want to go back to minibridge.

I agree to that. I don't agree about the logic here. Obviously in this bidding north was asked about solid ♠ stopper and promised to have them. So it does not make much sense to play ♠ trough partners possible KJxxx when north can hold AQT. So it does not make much sense to lead ♠, when there is an alternative. Now partner has shown a 2nd suit and stopper in that suit are likely to be placed in font of partners honors. So it is logical, if we lead one of partners suits to lead ♥. Since it is illogical to lead partners suit after this bidding, if dbl has a lead directing meaning, it should ask to lead partners suit although north promised a stopper. Partner may know that north has only one stopper and that he has side entries, to use his ♠ later.

How about using Law 72 B 1. ? I would think that playing slow is an irregularity as the rules set a time limit. So not finishing within the time limit and by that getting a better score (e.g. Ave- instead of a bottom) is damaging the non offending side. So I think adjusting the score is fine. Since part of the board is played it is suitable to correct the score to the likely outcome.

blackshoe you are right, the the laws do not allow to end a round with unfinished boards, but you draw the wrong conclusion about score correction. Take a look at the laws and you will find, that they order the TD to do everything possible to retrieve a result, before he is allowed to assign an artificial score. What if one or all all player drop their cards openly on the table right after the bidding? No artificial score is allowed, a result has to be set. Disputed claim, the rules don't allow the play to go on but the TD has to find a result. Or take an UI case there the wrong contract was played, because the UI was used. No artificial score is allowed, the TD sets the contract that would have been bid without using the UI and he has to find the result that this unplayed contract would have had. So there are tons of cases that prove that the rules order the TD to get a result at almost any cost, even if it means he has to finish bidding alone and play the board against himself. Since a TD can't change the software, he has to do his best to follow the intention of the laws which is to obtain a result at almost any cost, once a board has been started. So a TD should adjust any board that has been started, even if the outcome is not obvious, to get a result.

The correct way would be: 1) When the time is up, move all finished pairs to their new table. 2) Let the slow tables finish the board and move them to their new table 3) Cancel a board of the next round if neccessarry and give the late pair A- and the waiting pair A+ 4) Count how often a player has been red and how often a pair has been late in a tourney, this may help to decide what side is slow.

Taking the simplest example: 1x-1y-x could be negative showing the other 2 suits (with or without limited HCP range) or it could be support showing one card less than needed for a raise. You will realize that the support situation will not occur as often as the negativ dbl situation and you are saying much less over your hand. The problem is you cannot play both, and if you decide to play one style, you have no bid to show the other hand. Now in your case: 1♣-p-1♥-X ? It is unlikely that you want to show both unbid suits, so you can use redbl as artificial bid to show support in ♥, because if you bid ♠ it is unlikely that you have 5 cards there and you can bid NT with stopper in the unbid suits.

Opps have discusssed the ♠ stopper problem, if you want me to play spade, i need to hear a "they don't stop ♠" dbl. so I'll try ♥, because dummy should have the stopper in front of my partner.

My partners bid bid 2♣ with 5 cards and 10(9)+ HCP. So i need an invitational 2NT.